Skip to comments.Military Vet Faces Charges For Firing Warning Shot At Suspect Trying To Break Into Home
Posted on 06/01/2013 6:04:07 AM PDT by Innovative
A military veteran is facing criminal charges after firing a warning shot at a suspect trying to break into his house.
"There was nothing that the suspect was doing that was aggressive enough to justify the shooting," Lt. Mike Budreau told KDRV. "In fact, the suspect was walking away."
Thompson explains he was not shooting directly at the suspect, just at the ground.
Thompson has been charged with unlawful use of a weapon and menacing and reckless endangering and had his rifle confiscated.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattle.cbslocal.com ...
Sure, the suspect was walking away, AFTER the warning shot, just before that he was busy trying to break into the house.
In most states, if a suspect acts nuts, and is moving around in a threatening manner...they get one warning from the cops, and then they shoot you. Cops will even shoot the family dog, without much warning.
I suspect the cops are more upset that they didn’t get the call, and a chance to shoot the suspect themselves.
There's the problem. He should have been RUNNING.
Its Washington state, so what do you expect? Kalifornia liberals have moved there and taken over much like Oregon, Idaho and Colorado.
Two words of advice:
One needs only study nature to change defective natural human behavior to better protect one’s self (which extends to post-incident in society). The 5th doesn’t protect against stupidity.
Warning shots ARE bad. It’s unleashing deadly force in a situation where deadly force is not (yet) warranted; if deadly force WAS warranted, then you wouldn’t be wasting it on a warning.
That bullet is going somewhere. You’d better have a damn good reason for sending it there. Scaring someone isn’t one.
Actually the burglar was running, police Lt. Mike Budreau was misstating the facts:
“Medford authorities, who were already on the scene after receiving a disturbance call, arrested Kinsella after seeing him running out into the parking lot following the gunshot. Police, though, say Thompson was in the wrong for firing his weapon.”
“That bullet is going somewhere. Youd better have a damn good reason for sending it there. Scaring someone isnt one.”
You should have read the article, or at least the excerpt.
“Thompson explains he was not shooting directly at the suspect, just at the ground.”
That’s what you get when you live in an area of this country that is more concerned about the bums on the street getting their nightly shelter and their SSDI checks cashed each month than a typical homeowner trying to protect himself.
A warning shot indicates that you aren't really in danger, if you are you will really nail the SOB.
I'm sorry that this guy is learning things the hard way but he should have known better.
It appears that the police were more concerned with making an example of a gun owner than they were of defending the public.
Maybe on of the police liked the gun... or disliked the gun.
Either way, their was illegitimate incentive to cause the veteran trouble and considerable grief.
He should have been given an award and urged to attend a class on the use of deadly force.
No coffee yet...
on should be one
their should be there
Maybe there are other errors...
You'd better know where the sights are, and use them!
He was trying to do the sensible thing, scare the burglar away, before he breaks in — I guess the police would have preferred, if he had waited for the burglar to break in, be inside the house, and then shoot him, that would have been self defense - or maybe not, maybe the police would still have thought that deadly force was not justified.
Never fire a warning shot. You do not know where the bullet will go. With an ar-15, that can be several hundreds yards. The cops should have given him a lecture about warning shots and then praised him for stopping a known felon. They should never have taken his weapon away.
” Wasn’t really in danger”
The man made repeated attempts to break in the house. At one point he broke that off and tried to break in the next door neighbor’s house, then came back and resumed his original attempt. All this while the vet was trying to scare him off without having to shoot him. The man was acting in a bizarre way that suggested to the vet he was on some kind of drugs. Talking to him, explaining things was like talking to a zombie-like being. At the last, the vet said to him, I’m going to fire a warning shot. Get out of here, go away. Or the next time I fire I will shoot you. Upon the warning shot into the ground, the intruder ran away. The police - who were called by the vet - arrived. And from then on they have lied about the situation, repeating almost verbatim the perpetrator’s words to them and ignoring the vet’s statement and evidence. In addition, the perp had several outstanding warrants against him for burglary and other criminal issues, but the police have taken his side.
Thanks for the additional information and the real story of what happened.
The reason I have a complete version of what happened is, this vet was interviewed by Hannity on the radio. That beats, all to pieces, a story by “CBS Seattle” which is the basis for this thread.
As the post following yours states, I heard this man interviewed on Hannity’s radio show yesterday. He was able to get out the entirety of what he did, what the perp did and what the cops did. The bottom line is the police were not there and saw nothing. But they took the words of the perp and discounted what this military veteran said. The perp was wanted to face justice for doing the very thing he was doing this time, and still he was treated like a perfectly normal citizen and the vet was treated like a criminal.
I missed Hannity — I am glad he had the vet on his show and let him tell the real, full story.
You might get away with saying you missed, but this guy has been all over the place trying to play on the fact that he "didn't want to hurt anyone". He was on the radio yesterday babbling about warning shots.
He should have just said he missed the SOB, but that would be hard to do with a nice big hole in the ground.
My advice is that if you have warning shots in your plan you need to re-think your plan!
Where did you ever get that idea? The police are there to protect the government from the citizens and to ensure that the government's tyrannical laws are enforced.
"To oppress and extort."
Warning shot? In an apt. complex?
Sounds like poor judgment. Besides, there is no need for a warning shot. If dumb guy number one is trying to pass through a barrier setup to keep him out (door/window), and dumb guy number two screams out....stop!! If dumb guy number one continues into dumb guy number two's apartment, then place the well needed round into the lump of dumb guy number ones flesh. Then, dumb guy number two would magically not be a dumb guy at all, but a hero.
Agree and don't shoot them when they're TRYING to break in. Wait until they're in.
Then he’s discharging a firearm without lawful cause. Scaring someone is not a lawful cause. There is risk of ricochet, flying debris, hearing damage, and other risk to others. Firing at close range to bystanders is irresponsible. Lots of people are dead from warning shots.
Never mind wasting a round when he might very well need it.
Thank you for your post - very informative.
I was listening to Fox & Friends this a.m. and the Vet was on and repeated basically what you said.
My parents used to live in Seattle next to a retired Major from the Seattle Police Department. Not sure if the rules/law has changed, but he told them if someone is trying to break in and you shoot him on the porch, drag him inside then call the police.
They were out of town 1 winter and I went to their house to cover the faucets so the pipes wouldn’t freeze during a very cold spell. I think we scared each other (he certainly scared me!) as he came running over with his pistol in hand (he was expecting a burglar). My parents were fortunate to have such a knowledgeable and protective neighbor!
He didn’t shoot anyone when they tried to break in. The only shot he fired was into the ground, after telling the guy, stop trying to break in, I’m going to fire a warning shot. When he fired into the ground the guy ran away. Then the police came, took the criminal’s side (outstanding warrants on the guy for burglary and other crimes) and unleashed holy **** on the veteran.
As you know, nobody was shot. The warning shot was fired into the ground. So that advice you heard and repeated as an example of needing to show they were inside when you shot them, isn’t directly pointed at this situation.
BTW, anybody remember Joe Biden telling women at home alone to come to the their door with a shotgun if someone threatening is outside, and shoot into the air?
Said he told his wife to do that? Just buy a shotgun and shoot into the air, and I promise you that’s all you’ll need to protect yourself.
This guy shot into the ground. The would-be intruder ran away. The police, who saw nothing, took the side of the criminal.
He shot once into the ground. After telling the perp to stop trying to break in, and warning him that he was going to fire a warning shot and to get away from there. When he shot into the ground the guy ran. From there the police showed up and repeated words to the media that the criminal(outstanding warrants for burglary and other crimes) told them and turned the military vet into a criminal, ignoring his statements and evidence on the scene. I got my info from this veteran’s interview by Hannity, not from this CBS Seattle story,
And add to that: KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!!! The third "S." Anything beyond "I feared for my life" is counterproductive. The police DO NOT have your back, not in a blue state.
“Its Washington state, so what do you expect? Kalifornia liberals have moved there and taken over much like Oregon, Idaho and Colorado.”
Kalifornia Lib’s have taken over... Idaho? Geez, that was to be my last place of refuge should my beloved texas go Blue! Man, gotta re-think this whole thing...
Advice from "Shotgun Joe" Biden aside, firing a warning shot is never a good idea.
Next thing we will read of is the “victim” will sue the home owner for the “mental anguish” of being shot at.
Secondly, if the resident was standing outside his apartment, then there surfaces another issue. Firing a round into the ground tells me he was not in imminent danger of loss of life or property.
If the fella would have discharged the weapon from inside his unit in the direction of the bonehead crossing the barrier (door/widow) he'd likely not be in trouble right now.
Very similar to George Zimmerman. Not that he was in the wrong so much, he just put himself in a bad spot. If he'd kept his distance, the THUG would not have been able to engage him. Juss a thought.
I suspect what happened, though the reporter didn’t say it as such, was:
1) Burglar tried to break into home.
2) Homeowner warned burglar.
3) Burglar took off running after being warned.
4) Homeowner *exited* home with rifle.
5) Homeowner fired round into ground.
6) Police hear gunshot.
7) Still armed, homeowner runs out to parking lot.
8) Police see running burglar and armed homeowner, tell homeowner to drop rifle.
9) Police arrest burglar and arrest homeowner “for shooting at burglar running away.”
10) Homeowner says he fired into ground as a warning shot.
11) Homeowner has been charged with unlawful use of a weapon and menacing and reckless endangering.
(Oregon statute) § 166.220
Unlawful use of weapon
(1) A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if the person:
(a) Attempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapon as defined in ORS 161.015 (General definitions); or
(b) Intentionally discharges a firearm, blowgun, bow and arrow, crossbow or explosive device within the city limits of any city or within residential areas within urban growth boundaries at or in the direction of any person, building, structure or vehicle within the range of the weapon without having legal authority for such discharge.
(2) This section does not apply to:
(b) Persons lawfully defending life or property as provided in ORS 161.219 (Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person).
(1) A person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.
Recklessly endangering another person
(1) A person commits the crime of recklessly endangering another person if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person.
In Texas, after sundown, that's not required.
These cops need to talk to Joe Biden about this.
“He should have just said he missed the SOB, but that would be hard to do with a nice big hole in the ground.”
“I tried to kill him officer, but I stubbed my big toe, and tripped.”
“The perp was wanted to face justice for doing the very thing he was doing this time, and still he was treated like a perfectly normal citizen and the vet was treated like a criminal.”
You forgot - “The cops wanted to confiscate the AR-15 due to high costs of AR-15 type guns.”
I fixed your minor omission.
I agree my example doesn’t apply to this situation as it ocurred - I was just recalling a memory.
Too bad it didn’t happen in the great state of Texas - I don’t think there would have been an issue! If most of my family didn’t live here, I would definitely think very strongly about relocating and probably would relocate.
I agree with the FReeper that said we’ve been invaded by Libs from California - it started some time ago and they drove up home prices and infested the area with their liberal mindset - bleh!
Depends on the state. In a lot of states now you are justified in shooting an intruder attempting to forcibly enter the house if you are inside the dwelling.
Fire a weapon only to disable or kill, not warn.
“That bullet is going somewhere. “
Article says he shot into the ground....which I assume would stop it from going anywhere.
“Fire a weapon only to disable or kill, not warn.”
That is the advice I give my students, as well.
However, no policy is 100% absolute. I have read of numerous cases where warning shots seemed to achieve the desired effect.
Here we had a high stress situation in which a well trained veteran did not harm anyone and did some considerable good.
The vet should not be penalized for this.
Yeah, it's not like he was walking down the street whittling on a piece of wood.
I always act like I only have one shot left, it’s good for my concentration!
But for those who don't live in TX.
OTO if you live inNY, MD, MA, RI, NJ IL,DC, Then don't ever shoot. self defense is a far more serious crime than robbery in these jurisdictions. The police would far rather you be killed than one of their precious criminals be harmed by a citizen. After all if citizens get the notion that the can take care of criminal threats by themselves not nearly as many donut suckers will be needed, and people might even start questioning the necessity of disgorging quite so much to the worst criminal gang of all - the government